Chamber and committees

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the third meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in section 6.

We have two agenda items, the first of which is consideration of continued petitions from the previous session of Parliament. We will then consider new petitions. We will be joined by a number of parliamentary colleagues who have an interest in some of the petitions that we will consider. We will consider 10 continued petitions, all of which have been carried forward from the previous session of Parliament.

The first continued petition for consideration today is PE1517, on polypropylene mesh medical devices, which is a petition with which I have had some engagement. It was lodged by Elaine Holmes, who is a constituent of mine—and Olive McIlroy on behalf of the Scottish mesh survivors hear our voice campaign.

The petition calls on the Scottish Government to suspend the use of polypropylene transvaginal mesh procedures; initiate a public inquiry and/or comprehensive independent research to evaluate the safety of mesh devices using all evidence available, including from across the world; introduce mandatory reporting of all adverse incidents by health professionals; set up a Scottish transvaginal mesh implant register with a view to linking it up with national and international registers; introduce fully informed consent with uniformity throughout Scotland’s health boards; and write to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to ask that it reclassify transvaginal mesh devices to heightened alert status to reflect on-going concerns worldwide.

Our meeting papers outline some of the many actions that the committee has taken since the petition was first lodged in April 2014. Those include a report and a chamber debate as well as several evidence sessions. Through those sessions, the committee has heard directly from witnesses, including, among others, two cabinet secretaries for health, chief medical officers of the day, key figures at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Dr Dionysios Veronikis, who is a surgeon specialising in pelvic mesh removal in the United States and—so memorably—the petitioners themselves.

Our papers also highlight the recent introduction by the Scottish Government of the Transvaginal Mesh Removal (Cost Reimbursement) (Scotland) Bill as part of its programme, which was announced yesterday. The bill will allow the Scottish Government to set up a scheme that could reimburse people who have paid private healthcare costs to have their transvaginal mesh implant removed. It could also cover travel costs and hotel accommodation paid for in relation to the surgery.

In their most recent submission, the petitioners state that they are heartened that the Scottish Government’s women’s health plan for 2021 to 2024 highlights the importance of learning from the mesh crisis. However, they also highlight some questions that they have regarding the treatment that women suffering with mesh complications can access.

Would colleagues like to comment?

This has been a compelling debate. It has been uncomfortable for me at times and I hope that it has been uncomfortable for everyone. None of us should feel that we have the moral high ground or that we lack personal responsibility for what we have been discussing. I can say to Foysol Choudhury that we will support the Labour amendment and I say to those who have asked specific questions of the Conservatives that I will come to those in my summing up.

I begin with a couple of observations. Kenneth Gibson reminded us in a motion that he lodged today that, a week on Saturday, it will be 20 years since the events of 9/11 took place in New York. That was the catalyst for the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. I remember that day, which I imagine all of us are old enough to remember. I felt a profound sense of shock not only at the events but at the realisation that the whole period of cold war foreign politics that I had grown up with, and which had been in a hiatus, had suddenly been replaced with a completely new form of politics and threat that was going to dominate events in the years ahead.

Some 58 nations supported the incursion into Afghanistan, which was at first intended to end the threat from al-Qa’ida and the use of Afghanistan as a base for international terrorism. We succeeded in that objective. I think many of us accept that the subsequent war in Iraq, whatever its merits—and that is a separate debate—diluted the effort had been made in Afghanistan. That war took the eyes of the international community and of the countries that had been part of the invasion of Afghanistan and its hoped-for rebuilding off the prize of a better Afghanistan in future.

Despite all the work that we did on education for women, which Pam Gosal and others touched on this afternoon, there came to be a growing realisation as time went on that the hopes of that first democratic election were not being fulfilled. The Government of Hamid Karzai, which sought to try to centralise Afghanistan around Kabul, was alienating many of those in the regional provinces and there was an emergence of an internal civil conflict, with which we then found it almost impossible to wrestle.

As we come to the most recent events, I think that the departure was a disgrace, and I look to the United States as the principal body of culpability. In two presidential elections in America, we have been presented with candidates who were either unfit for office, deeply polarising or unsuited to office. This is the first time in my lifetime that that has happened.

Whatever I felt about American Administrations—from Eisenhower in Korea; through Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam; Reagan in Grenada; Bush and an exemplary first incursion repelling the invasion of Kuwait; to Clinton and the Balkans; and subsequently Bush and Obama—I may have disagreed, but I thought that there was a basic level of competence. I do not see that today, and if people across the world think that America has given up on them, why should America expect them not to give up on it? I saw a headline in the Chinese communist national newspaper saying that people in Taiwan should look to Afghanistan and see their future. That is deeply disturbing for us, as part of a NATO alliance that has relied inherently on the strength of the United States.

Of course, in Saigon, it collapsed in an ignominious fashion, although it did at least manage to dump the hardware in the sea rather than leaving it for those who were taking over. America did recover its authority after Vietnam, and we just have to hope, even as we stand here in some dismay, that that can yet happen again, because America has to be a crucial part of our international western response to events.

At the moment, it seems that there is a lot of wishful thinking abroad that the Taliban will be different, but the early signs are not encouraging. Women have been expelled from university in Herat and told that they can no longer work, and huge numbers of people have been summarily executed, yet there are those in the Overseas Development Institute in London and in UNICEF who say that there are grounds for optimism.

A real subject for international debate—we have not touched on it in this debate—may yet be what happens if the Taliban do not deliver. Do we simply then withhold all aid and support from the people of Afghanistan as a penalty for its imposed Government, or do we recognise that we still have a moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan, notwithstanding the actions of the subsequent Government? We need to touch on that.

There have been some compelling contributions to the debate. I listened to Bob Doris, Katy Clark, Foysol Choudhury and Pam Gosal, who all talked with passion about the people of Afghanistan and our responsibility, and I hope that we accept that it is a collective responsibility. Let us not find ways together to be cynical and undermine the challenge that is now before us. We are an excellent country at welcoming and incorporating people into the United Kingdom, and in operation warm welcome we should be willing to succeed and not find excuses and reasons to hope that we will fail.

I will not get into the numbers debate, but two questions have been asked of us this afternoon and I want to be clear that the commitment from the UK Government—I think that I saw an exchange between the cabinet secretary and others on this—is that

“Relevant Afghan citizens ... already in the UK with limited leave can apply for indefinite leave to remain at any time, despite the Immigration Rules currently stating they must have competed at least 5 years with limited leave before they are eligible”.

The criteria are that they have worked for the UK, they are at risk of death, which is a pretty comprehensive provision in the current circumstances, or that they are otherwise eligible as set out in the relocations and assistance scheme. I do not feel confident to go beyond that today, but I am prepared to work with the Scottish Government to bottom out what that commitment actually represents.

Secondly, we have been asked about our commitment to international aid. I and my predecessor were absolutely clear that we did not agree with the UK Government’s decision to reduce the international aid budget, although we understood the economic circumstances of the moment, and I have called for and will continue to call for its earliest possible restoration. However, I point out that the aid budget is not a cash sum, it is a percentage of GDP. That requires a strong and growing economy. There is not much point in willing a bigger percentage if one is not also going to will a stronger and bigger economy at the same time. The amount of aid that we are able to give, whatever the percentage, depends on the strength of our economy as a country, but we are saying in our amendment that we want to see that percentage restored.

I recognise that my time is up. I will finish by saying that collectively, as a chamber, a country and a people, we owe one heck of a debt to all the people who helped us in Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan whom we sought to help, and we must honour that in full.

The next petition is PE1852—I am tempted to pronounce that as the year 1852, as the petition relates to increased planning protection for Scottish battlefields, although I am not sure whether we had a battle in 1852. The petition was lodged by George Kempik on behalf of the group to stop development at Culloden. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to designate historic battlefields with a heritage status and to implement a stricter planning framework to protect them.

The submission from the Scottish Government states that current legislation, planning regulations, national policy and related guidance already set out the recognition and protection principles for battlefields. It explains that Historic Environment Scotland is responsible for designating nationally important battlefields and adding them to the register. Those battlefields are then given additional consideration in the planning system in terms of local development plans and individual planning applications.

The submission states that safeguards were strengthened in March 2019, when the Scottish Government

“issued a notification direction requiring authorities to alert us to new planning cases for non-householder development that may affect any of our designated historic battlefields.”

Although the petitioner appreciates that there are already substantial measures in place, he is concerned about the persistent nature of developers. He doubts that the measures that are in place are sufficient to provide protection to such historic areas as the Scottish battlefields in the face of such persistence.

I am happy to hear comments from colleagues.

We have had two suggestions, the first of which is that we invite the petitioner to consider the Scottish Government’s response, outlining the process of granting a pardon. Normally, that would happen by exception and individually in response to the case that was prosecuted. Secondly, Paul Sweeney is advocating that we ask the Scottish Government the broader question of whether there is a process by which it could make a political decision on the matter.

Paul, do you want to clarify your suggestion?

I wonder whether we could combine both recommendations that we have heard. We could still use rule 15.7 to close the petition but, at the same time, write to the Scottish Government to point out the experience elsewhere on the continent and to seek some clarification about whether there might be some areas in which it could extend the practice of the delivery of face coverings. Would that be acceptable?

PE1860, which has been lodged by Jennifer Morrison Holdham, calls on the Scottish Government to amend the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow retrospective claims to be made. The Scottish Government states that prescription and limitation incentivise people to enforce their legal rights through the courts promptly, without delay, and also provide legal certainty. However, the submission states that, should the court be persuaded that it is equitable to do so, it can already override the principal limitation time limits to allow a legal action. In her response, the petitioner states that she has “been treated ... unfairly” in her own case, due to a lack of timely action on the part of her solicitor, and therefore

“that there should be an opportunity for people in such situations to be able to make retrospective claims, at any time.”

Do members have any comments? I think that all of us, certainly those of us who have been around for a bit, have been written to by constituents who have fallen foul of such time limits, which is what the Scottish Government has sought to address in its response.

I have quite a complicated note for the next petition. PE1853, which was lodged by Councillor Donald Kelly and Councillor Douglas Philand, calls on the Scottish Government to provide an all-year-round freight and passenger lifeline ferry service from Campbeltown to Ardrossan.

The Scottish Government’s submission advises that the request to extend the ferry service

“was discussed with elected members from the Argyll & Bute Council and other stakeholders”,

including, I presume, the petitioners. The Scottish Government states that

“it is not ... operationally possible to extend the current operating period of the Ardrossan-Campbeltown service as there are no available vessels.”

The submission highlights that the Scottish Government remains

“committed to securing the two new ferries currently under construction, with the delivery of MV Glen Sannox expected in April-June 2022.”

The Government suggests that, once the Glen Sannox is delivered, the potential for a year-round Ardrossan to Campbeltown service could be explored, subject to a robust business case being made and the availability of funding.

The petitioners have discussed the possibility of potential vessels with well-known ferry consultants, who have advised that vessels that are currently available outwith the CalMac fleet could be procured to meet the requirements of providing a lifeline service.

We have received a late submission from Donald Cameron MSP, who was hoping to be able to attend the meeting for consideration of the petition. Members have been provided with a copy of that submission. The submission states that the petitioners have identified the need for alternative forms of transport from the Kintyre peninsula to the central belt. Donald Cameron addresses the suggestions in the Scottish Government’s submission regarding options such as flying from Campbeltown to Glasgow and using ferry services at Dunoon and Hunters Quay. He offers that those alternatives are not suitable on the basis of above average cost or notable travel time.

The submission continues by raising concerns about possible links with

“the anticipated depopulation of the Kintyre area”

and suggesting that

“the creation of a permanent ferry service”

could contribute to

“encouraging people to remain in the area”.

Donald Cameron states that he supports further exploration of potential vessels that meet the requirements of a year-round service by Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government. He concludes by stating that the inability of Transport Scotland and CalMac to offer an all-year-round ferry service for one of the major towns of Argyll and Bute is simply not good enough.

This is obviously an important petition. Would members like to offer any observations?

That seems reasonable. We might also ask the Government to be more expansive on the process for evaluating a subsequent business case for the route in the event that, as the submission says, it becomes possible at a later stage. It would be useful if people knew how that was going to proceed.

Do members agree to keep the petition open while we pursue those two lines of inquiry?

Members indicated agreement.

We would be happy to do that.

Mr Torrance, having previously advocated that we close the petition, are you happy with that approach?